Commentary on "Gun Control" by Aadil Khatri

On November 27th, 2014, Aadil Khatri posted an article, Gun Control about how gun control needs to be enforced and that there is a big gun issue in America. Although I respect the idea that there is various cases where people who own guns have gone crazy and murdered people in cold blood, I disagree with the idea that this problem of crime is solely based on guns. If we get rid of guns, there will always be other weapons people can use to murder and hurt people. Taking away guns won't solve the problem, because there are plenty of crazy people that would find ANY WAY to hurt other people, (knives, automobiles, etc). You can take the gun away from the crazies, but not the crazy away from the crazies! In fact, drinking before you are 21 is illegal, recreational drugs are illegal, but people STILL find ways to do those things. All that taking guns away from people would do is disable a lot of people from protecting themselves. And not to mention the fact that in todays society, we can't even trust the police that are suppose to ultimately protect us and keep us safe. Background checks are necessary, but taking away the citizens right to bear arms is not.

Education In The U.S

         A strong school system is a top priority in the U.S. However, school isn't always cheap, especially not college. We need to have colleges in the U.S that are more affordable to middle class families. Tuition and fees have skyrocketed over the past decade. A lot of U.S citizens do not get the opportunity to go to college due to the expenses of an education. On top of tuition, most students have to worry about textbooks, living expenses, transportation, and end up having to work while also attending school, or even worse, taking out giant student loans with high interests rates.
        Even though there are still some opportunities to receive financial aid and/or scholarships, many students don't know about them or believe they are too complicated to acquire. Universities and other colleges make it very difficult to receive any type of financial aid, due to the fact that so many students need it nowadays. This becomes a problem because even though taking out a student loan is a rather easy process, many students won't because they are worried of becoming in debt. Even those that end up graduating with a degree and jump into a well paying career are victim to the high interest rates on student loans and the debt that it causes. Debt is merely irrevocable. Many prospective students think about finances, and are discouraged and won't even apply because it seems impossible to do without getting deeper into debt.
          The problem that will eventually arise from this is that our culture will slowly start to get less educated because individuals don't want to burden themselves with debt from student loans. Paying out of pocket for college is out of the question. Most students out of high school have either never had a job or are working minimum wage as a part timer, which just won't cut it. The lucky ones who have parents in stable jobs and are done with THEIR student loan debt, may get the opportunity to go to school through them, but those numbers are low. We need to do something about the high tuition fees that have spiked up and figure out a way to get more individuals to go to college so that they can go on to get stable careers and become a working individual who has benefited from the system and is now giving back through their career.

         

Commentary on Carrie Henry's Enough is Enough

On October 31st, 2014 Carrie Henry commented on the United States Border, Enough is Enough, and how she thinks that illegal immigrants in the US has become somewhat of a problem.

I agree one hundred percent that the United States' Government and armed forces need to take more steps in protecting the border and enforcing it as well as the consequences for being here illegally.

I do not think it is insensitive at all to say that those who come here should not be allowed to stay regardless of whether or not they are kids, (because a lot of parents in Mexico allow their kids to cross the border in order to better their life). I do understand that there are reasons why Mexicans cross illegally to get away from the terrible circumstances that are there in their country, but that does not make it fair for them to bring their problems here. We do not need any more drug problems or poverty stricken citizens here in the United States. That being said, we don't need ANY more people here in the country. Overpopulation already is a problem.

Another thing that bothers me about illegal immigrants is that we are so worried about the national debt but don't stop to think about what all of the illegal immigrants do to that. It is not fair that US taxpayers have to pay for extra people that do not belong here. Don't mean to sound harsh when saying this, but I do believe that most immigrants that come here don't come here and get ahead and do anything for the country. Most of them to be honest just come to ride off the governments money (Medicaid, Unemployment, Food Stamps). It just isn't right.

I think that enforcing our borders and bringing more troops there to protect it would be very beneficial. I also believe that we need to enforce consequences when catching immigrants here illegally. As for the "pathway to citizenship", I think that this is absolutely absurd. We can't reward people and give them the right to live here, when they broke the law.

Why Gay Marriage is Unconstitutional

To the contrary of what most students in my generation believe, I'm a strong believer that gay marriage is unconstitutional, and should not be legalized. We seem to be drifting further and further from the constitution as time goes by. Now just to be clear, I'm by no means a "homo-phobe". I'm very much accustomed to the way that things are currently, (especially in Austin, Texas believe me). I do not hate any one because of their sexual preferences, nor do I judge them. That being said, one of the biggest reasons I feel the way I do is because of religion.

It is my belief that our Country and our Constitution was founded on a strong, Christian foundation. When the Constitution was written, the founders were mostly all Christians, and believed the Country should be the same. Although we are a "free" country, and allow a country for other religions, cultures, and ideas to roam freely, our foundation should always remain Christian and follow the Constitution.

In the Christian religion, marriage is between a man and a woman, just as Adam and Eve. In the bible, the act of being gay or sleeping with someone of the same sex is considered a sin. I know there are a lot of points to be made here, about how lying, cheating, and etc are also considered sins in the bible, but the point I'm trying to make here is that sin should not ever be legal. This only encourages it and makes sin look okay in the eyes of so many that already believe that religion and doing good isn't very important anymore.

Even if you were to take out the fact of religion, many of the founders also had a strong belief in the importance of family. It bears repeating, a working family should be between a father and mother, not two fathers or two mothers.

Is Obama Not Doing Enough About Ebola?

In the article "Amid Assurances on Ebola, Obama Is Said to Seethe" on the New York Times people are still aggravated with the government on the way they are handling the Ebola crises. It really is a shame that President Obama now has to deal with Ebola while having to deal with so many issues with ISIS. I believe that President Obama is doing everything he can for our nation. This article is directed towards the people of the United States who are "tweeting" or over dramatizing the concerns with Ebola. Just because there has been four people with Ebola in the U.S doesn't mean the whole United States is going to be infected. Ebola is not easily contracted and I don't believe the people of the U.S should be as concerned as they are. Instead of "tweeting" about how tragic it is go out and do something about it. "For two turbulent weeks, White House officials have sought to balance those imperatives: insisting the dangers to the American public were being overstated in the news media, while also moving quickly to increase the president’s demonstration of action." I completely agree with this statement, it is a concern that Ebola has been detected in the United States but the way the media is going about it is a little too far fetched if you ask me. President Obama has tried to calm the public down about the situation we are in but they simply wont listen. Ron Klain has been elected to coordinate the governments efforts on Ebola, which I believe was a great idea to take some of the pressure off of President Obama. “Part of the challenge is to be assertive, to be in command, and yet not feed a kind of panic that could easily evolve here,” I do not agree with this statement however. President Obama is doing everything he can, what more is there that he can do to stop or make sure the Ebola does not spread to more people in the U.S? The Ebola "outbreak" is not nearly as bad as it is in West Africa and I hope that it never becomes that bad.

Analysizing ISIS From a New Perspective

In The New York Time's "The Fundamental Horror of ISIS", the writer tries to capture the attention of open-minded individuals mostly middle-aged, (because how much of the younger generations actually read the paper or New York Times anymore?). In addition to informing the reader about the terrors that go on in the Islamic State, the writer claims that these said terrors cannot be placed entirely on the nation itself, although the evil seems to be specific to that area right now. The writer then states that ISIS should be stopped before they go on to do bigger and badder things.
The writer supports this with the logic that even Al Qaeda, who was responsible for 9/11, thought of disowning the Islamic State's cruelty and torturous ways. The fact that even Al Qaeda thought they had gone too far shows the reader that these things they have done are close to pure evil and are needing to be stopped. Later on in the article, the writer claims that the beheadings and crucifixions have actually gained a lot of supporters, including Europeans and Americans. He goes on to say that the masked man who beheaded the American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff were from Britain, NOT Iraq, and that goes to show that it isn't just Muslims committing these crimes. The writer then states "To claim that this savagery is rooted in a certain people or a certain religion is to forget that the great atrocities of our age have been perpetrated on different continents by people professing different ideologies and different religions. Before the Islamic State there was Rwanda, and the Lord’s Resistance Army and the killing fields of Cambodia, and before that, in Europe, the Holocaust." He then continues with saying "Comparisons are meaningless at this level of evil, as are attempts to explain the horror by delving into the psychology or rationale of the perpetrators. Even to call what this group does “crimes against humanity” is to put a legalistic spin on raw evil."
It is my opinion as well as this author's that these monstrosities do need to be stopped somehow, someway. The Islamic State can try to justify it's evil doings all they want, it by no means gives a realistic excuse for the tortures, rapes, and horrible murders of children, Americans, women, and people of other ethnicities/religions. I also agree with the fact that this type of evil cannot be compared or analysized to fit just one particular culture or nation. This level of cruelty and wrong doings can only be described as evil and the result of hatred and discrimination brought into a weak and confused nation.
The writers credibility is pretty high because of the fact that it is from a big time newspaper, and in order to be a part of the editorial board, (whom wrote this opinion article), you would have to be very knowledgeable and well educated. Although I do believe that The New York Times, (as any other media source), can be biased or lean towards one political culture/party. The only quotes the writer uses are directly from Roger Cohen, The New York Times' own columnist, which proves to be very biased.

House Approves Arms for Syrian Rebels- Necessary, or Not so Much?

         In the article, House Grudgingly Approves Arms for Syrian Rebels, there is much concern to whether or not Obama should follow through with his plan to aid the Syrian Rebels to overturn the Syrian President.Wednesday, after House approved administration authority to train and arm Syrian rebels in the struggle against Islamic State militants in either Iraq or Syria, people have began to wonder if maybe House has given too much power to the Presidency. Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma said, "Members on both sides of the aisle are very concerned that too much of Congress' warmaking power has gone to the president". President Barack Obama also stated that American forces "do not and will not have a combat mission".
            The votes Wednesday seemed inconclusive and unbiased to one party, with a 273-156 vote in Congress. Some of the top Republican as well as Democratic leaders supported Obama and his provision to add it to the spending legislation, while another large group of lawmakers in both parties as well were strictly against it. Overall, 85 Democrats and 71 Republicans voted against Obama and against granting him the power he wanted to arm Syria. But with 159 votes from Republicans and 114 from Democrats, the measure was passed.
            In order to bring comfort to the liberal lawmakers, Obama made sure to reassure that the new military mission would be limited and that the House "took an important step forward as our nation unites to confront the threat posed" by the Islamic State group. Even leaders such as the Speaker, John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California supported Obama's plan while other Republican officials thought that the plans wouldn't work to defeat the militants that have overrun Iraq and Syria.
             GOP lawmakers took comfort in the fact that it was a short-term legislation. It grants Obama authority until Dec. 11, which grants Congress plenty of time to return to the issue in a postelection session set to begin in mid-November. In order to train and equip rebels, it will cost about $500 million dollars. The cost wasn't a huge debate to the lawmakers, because they were mainly focused on the possible consequences of a new military mission not long after America ended participation in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
            Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif. said,"We simply don't know if somewhere down the line it will turn our guns back against us". Rep. Sanchez isn't alone in her fear that the rebels we arm and are wishing for the removal of Syrian president Assad could eventually prove unreliable allies.

            The final approval by the Senate is expected on Thursday.

            This article is important to read in that once more, the idea of whether the President should be granted the power to arm troops and when and if that is necessary, is brought up. The idea of war in general, or anything that could possibly lead to war is important to grasp an understanding of so that you can begin to form your own opinions. After reading this article you can tell that the country as a whole and all of it's political leaders are split on whether or not the next move we are making is right or not, due to the fact that it's costly, timely, and could become a possible threat in the future to us.